Re: GNAT function calling overhead

[brashear@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us (Philip Brashear)]

In article <3m0psq$fl2@stout.entertain.com>,
Colin James III <cjames@stout.entertain.com> wrote:
>
>At the most abstract level, it's because GNAT is a failed government 
>project which was never finished and was mismanaged from the start by a 
>bunch of flaky educators posing as "capable professionals".
>
>At the most detailed level, it's because GNAT emits poorly optimized, and 
>hence very evil, C code.
>
>And what makes anyone think that ACT will change anything with regard to 
>GNAT support, documentation or enhancements.  The ACT principals have 
>already demonstrated that they failed with GNAT, by even starting ACT.
>In other words, if GNAT were such a smashing success and quality product, 
>then there would be no need for ACT.  
>
>Good grief, what moral and intellectual dishonesty !

I KNOW that one shouldn't waste time responding to either Mr. James or
Mr. Aharonian, but this is ridiculous and near the point of libel.

First, GNAT is not strictly a government project; other organizations have
partially funded it (yes?).  Second, it doesn't claim to be finished.  Third,
I don't believe that it emits C code at all.  Fourth, ACT was founded to
provide services related to GNAT, not to "finish" it.

Colin, for Heaven's sake, learn the meaning of "homework" and "self-control"!!!

Phil Brashear